**Case No. 242/2055/23 dated 04/16/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is a complaint by PERSON_1 against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings and the debiting of funds from his account based on a decision on administrative penalty.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the following arguments:
* According to procedural law, appeals against the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the execution of a decision on administrative penalty must be considered in the procedure of administrative, not civil, proceedings.
* Civil proceedings provide for appealing the actions of the enforcement officer only in cases of execution of decisions rendered within the framework of civil cases.
* Since the case concerns appealing the actions of the enforcement officer in enforcement proceedings opened on the basis of a decision on an administrative offense, it is subject to consideration in an administrative court.
* The courts of previous instances mistakenly considered the case under the procedure of civil proceedings, which is a violation of the rules of jurisdiction.
* The proper way to protect the rights of the applicant is to apply to the administrative court.
* The court of cassation instance is obliged to close the proceedings in the case if it is not subject to consideration under the procedure of civil proceedings.
3. The court decided to overturn the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal, and to close the proceedings in the case.
**Case No. 127/37017/23 dated 04/16/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for the cancellation of adoption, filed by the adoptive parent against the former husband (father of the children) and third parties, on the grounds that the adoption does not provide for family upbringing of the children and is contrary to their interests after the dissolution of the marriage between the adoptive parent and the father of the children.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, guided by the fact that the dissolution of the marriage is not a basis for canceling the adoption, since the adoptive parent acquired the rights and obligations regarding the children to the same extent as biological parents, and must fulfill them. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of unlawful behavior of the adopted child, which would threaten the life or health of the adoptive parent or other family members, and also did not prove that the adoption does not meet the interests of the children. The court also took into account that one of the adopted children is of legal age, and for the cancellation of adoption in such a case, evidence of unlawful behavior is required, which was not provided. The court of appeal critically assessed the defendant’s statement of admission of the claim, pointing to its inconsistency with the law and violation of interests.
in children. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that personal disagreements between parents cannot be the basis for canceling adoption, since ensuring the best interests of children is of paramount importance.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal unsatisfied.
[**Case No. 522/17693/23 dated 04/16/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126718732)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property and moral damage caused to the plaintiff due to the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa region to pay the monthly supplement to the pension, provided for by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and closing the proceedings in the case, was guided by the fact that the dispute arose in public law relations, since it concerns the calculation and payment of pensions by a state body that performs владні управлінські functions. The court noted that the claim for recovery of underpaid pension, even if it is defined as property damage, is a public law dispute that should be considered in the order of administrative proceedings. Since the main claim concerns public law relations, the claim for compensation for moral damage should also be considered in the administrative court. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the resolution of the dispute depends on the legality of the actions of the pension fund regarding the calculation and payment of the pension, and such legal relations are regulated by the norms of public law. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the dispute is of a private law nature, since the attempt to transfer the dispute to the sphere of tort legal relations does not change its essence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged, confirming that the dispute should be considered in the order of administrative proceedings.
[**Case No. 296/9480/22 dated 04/17/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126718730)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual of the cost of the additional volume of natural gas, caused by unauthorized interference with the operation of the meter.
2. The court satisfied the claim of JSC “Zhytomyrgaz”, since the fact of unauthorized interference with the operation of the gas meter by the defendant was established, which led to distortion of the data on the accounting of consumed gas. The court took into account the act of expertise, which confirmed damage to the seals and other signs of interference, as well as the conclusion of the expert verification, which признав лічильник непридатним through non-compliance with standards. The court noted that the фа
The fact of possible distortion of accounting data, created through interference with the meter, is a violation that entails the accrual of unaccounted gas. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the incorrect calculation of the gas volume, as the defendant did not provide evidence to refute the plaintiff’s calculations. In addition, the court found it lawful to dismiss the defendant’s response to the claim without consideration due to the expiration of procedural deadlines.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 202/24279/13-ц dated 16/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded between the bank and an individual.
2. The court partially satisfied the bank’s claim, recovering from the defendant the debt on the loan and interest, but refused to recover penalties in full. The court proceeded from the fact that the defendant improperly fulfilled the obligations under the loan agreement, but applied the statute of limitations to the bank’s claims, limiting the period for calculating the debt to five years preceding the appeal to the court. The court also took into account that interest accrual for the use of the loan should be carried out taking into account the loan term specified in the agreement. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about violations of territorial jurisdiction, since at the time of the opening of proceedings in the case, one of the defendants was another bank, which allowed the plaintiff to determine jurisdiction based on the location of this bank. The court also noted that the debt calculation provided by the bank is proper evidence in the case, as it is confirmed by other evidence, in particular, the loan agreement and account statements.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, and the defendant’s cassation appeal – unsatisfied.
Case No. 505/3396/23 dated 16/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal to the plaintiff due to non-elimination of deficiencies.
2. The court of cassation left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of sending a copy of the appeal to another party to the case, which was a requirement of the appellate court to eliminate deficiencies. The Supreme Court noted that although the plaintiff referred to exemption from paying court fees as a consumer, he did not challenge the failure to comply with the requirement to send a copy of the complaint to the defendant. The court of cassation emphasized that it reviews the case within the stated
of the requirements, and since the requirement to provide evidence of sending the complaint to the defendant was not challenged, the appellate court rightfully returned the complaint due to the failure to eliminate all deficiencies. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the arguments of the cassation appeal are limited exclusively to the applicant’s disagreement with the obligation to pay the court fee for filing an appeal, but it does not contain arguments regarding the obligation to provide evidence of sending a copy of the appeal, formed in the “Electronic Court” system, to another participant in the case.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the appellate court’s ruling – without changes.
Case No. 761/30753/23 dated 04/18/2025
Certainly, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the order of the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the order of the acting director of the Scientific and Research Dendrological Park “Sofiyivka” of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine regarding the postponement of the election of the director and the appointment of an acting director, as well as the obligation to hold the second round of elections for the director.
The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not prove the illegal inaction of the defendants. The court noted that the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine took all necessary measures to hold the elections, but they did not take place not through its fault, since none of the candidates received the required number of votes, and the organizing committee did not make a decision to hold the second round. The court also took into account that the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine had the right to postpone the elections for the period of martial law in accordance with the law. The appellate court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that a repeat of the second round of elections is not provided for, and the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine reasonably appointed an acting director and postponed the elections.
The court of cassation instance left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged, supporting their conclusions on the legality of the actions of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in the situation.
Case No. 369/13520/23 dated 04/16/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of funds under a terminated construction contract, where the client demanded the return of the paid funds due to the contractor’s failure to perform the work.
The court of cassation instance left unchanged the decisions of the previous instance courts, which satisfied the client’s claim. The court proceeded from the fact that the defendant did not provide evidence of the impossibility of submitting a motion to conduct a handwriting examination in the court of first instance, where the defendant’s representative participated in the sessions and did not object to the circumstances of the case. Also, the court noted that the collection of evidence is not the responsibility of the court, except in cases established by law,
and that each party bears the risk of consequences associated with the commission or non-commission of procedural actions. The court emphasized that the appellate court reasonably rejected the motion to order an expert examination, as no evidence was provided of the impossibility of submitting it in the local court.
The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal without satisfaction and the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes.
Case No. 939/1101/23 dated 04/17/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement concluded between individuals as invalid.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the defendant misled him regarding the condition of the land plot, in particular, regarding its ameliorative condition and the possibility of flooding. The court noted that the contract contains all the essential conditions provided by law, and there is no evidence of the defendant’s intention to mislead the plaintiff. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff applied to the court only six years after the conclusion of the contract, which casts doubt on his claim that he was unaware of the shortcomings of the plot at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. The court emphasized that there is no evidence of restrictions on the use of the plot as reclaimed land and of the defendant’s awareness of the existence of the reclamation system. The judges indicated that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a revaluation of the evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 295/7659/15-ц dated 04/17/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings and the seizure of property in connection with the joint recovery of debt under loan agreements.
2. The court refused to satisfy the complaint, as the private enforcement officer acted within the limits of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The court noted that the writ of execution was submitted for execution within the established period, and the actions of the enforcement officer, in particular the seizure of property, were aimed at enforcing the court decision. It is important that the court took into account that at the time of the enforcement actions, the private enforcement officer had the right to enforce decisions in the relevant amount. Also, the court noted that the recognition of the suretyship agreement as terminated is not a basis for canceling the enforcement proceedings, since the applicant did not apply to the court with a request to recognize the writ of execution as not subject to execution in this part. The judges emphasized
or that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of rights, and initiating judicial control over the execution of decisions without the purpose of protecting rights is unacceptable.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
[**Case No. 522/142/19 dated 04/16/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126718731)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff of the amount of debt, which, according to the plaintiff, arose as a result of the defendant’s failure to fulfill the obligation to compensate the plaintiff for the difference between the value of the mortgaged property and the amount of the claims secured by the mortgage.
2. The court of cassation instance, reversing the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff (mortgagor) and the defendant (mortgagee) concluded a transaction in the manner prescribed by law on the transfer of the subject of the mortgage to the ownership of the mortgagee on the basis of a reservation in the mortgage agreement. The value of the subject of the mortgage was agreed upon by the parties in the mortgage agreement and confirmed by the report of the appraiser. The plaintiff did not dispute the state registration of the right of ownership for the defendant on the subject of the mortgage and did not object to the procedure for transferring the right of ownership out of court. The court noted that disputing the value of the subject of the mortgage in January 2019 is inconsistent, as it contradicts the previous statements and behavior of the plaintiff as a party to the contract. Also, the court took into account that the value of the real estate, determined in the mortgage agreement and the valuation report, is less than the amount of debt under the loan agreement, for which the plaintiff acted as guarantor. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the monetary obligation to compensate the mortgagor for the excess of 90 percent of the value of the subject of the mortgage over the amount of the claims secured by the mortgage arises at the moment when the mortgagee acquires the right of ownership to the subject of the mortgage, the value of which exceeds the value of the claims secured by the mortgage.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
[**Case No. 420/6951/24 dated 04/18/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126730386)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa region (HUPFU) to recalculate the monthly lifetime monetary allowance of Judge OSOBA_1 in retirement, taking into account the increased subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established on January 1, 2024.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, noting that for the calculation of the monthly lifetime monetary allowance of a judge in retirement
the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons in the amount of UAH 3,028 established as of January 1, 2024, should be applied. However, the court emphasized that, in order to carry out the recalculation, a retired judge must submit an application to the pension authority and a certificate of judge’s remuneration issued by the authorized body. Since the plaintiff did not provide such a certificate, the pension authority did not have an obligation to carry out the recalculation. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s reference to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, noting that they concerned other circumstances, in particular, the legal status of former judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and therefore are not relevant to this case. The court emphasized that the absence of a certificate of judge’s remuneration is a violation of the established recalculation procedure, which makes it impossible to satisfy the claims.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 810/322/18 dated April 18, 2025
Good day! I will be happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by Astrum Security LLC against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in the Kyiv Region regarding the increase in tax liabilities on income tax, VAT, and the application of penalties for violations of cash transactions.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the tax authority, canceling the decision of the court of appeal in the part of income tax and VAT, and the decision of the court of first instance was upheld. The court’s arguments were based on the fact that the court of appeal did not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the absence in the documents provided by the plaintiff of the necessary information about the content, time, date, and place of receipt of services, as well as other important details that call into question the reality of economic transactions with counterparties. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to confirm the reality of economic transactions, the taxpayer must provide properly executed primary documents that contain all the necessary details and indicate the actual performance of operations. At the same time, regarding penalties for violations of cash transactions, the court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal on their illegality, but on other grounds, namely: with reference to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the provisions of the Decree of the President of Ukraine, on the basis of which these sanctions were applied, are not subject to application in connection with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine “On the use of registrars of settlement operations in the field of trade, public catering and services”.
3. The court of cassation partially overturned the decision of the court of appeal, upholding the decision of the court
of the court of first instance regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim concerning income tax and VAT, but changed the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision regarding the cancellation of penalties for violation of cash operations.
Case No. 420/17661/23 dated 04/17/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the migration service to cancel the permit for immigration to Ukraine for a citizen of the Russian Federation and to restore the validity of the permanent residence permit.
2. The court of first instance refused to satisfy the claim, justifying it by the fact that the submission of the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) to cancel the immigration permit was prepared within its competence, and the information contained therein is a sufficient basis for canceling the permit. The appellate court agreed with this decision, additionally noting the socio-political situation in the country, namely the armed aggression of Russia against Ukraine, which makes reasonable concerns about threats to national security. The court of cassation, although taking into account the context of the political and security situation in Ukraine, emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of due process and the need to provide the person with the opportunity to provide explanations. The court also noted that the decision to cancel the immigration permit must clearly state the factual data on the person’s actions that pose a threat to national security, and not just general references to the SBU submission.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 813/702/18 dated 04/18/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision by which “TIR AUTO TRADE” LLC had the amount of monetary obligation on income tax increased.
2. The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, satisfied the claims of “TIR AUTO TRADE” LLC, canceling the tax notice-decision, since the tax authority did not prove the fictitiousness of the plaintiff’s business transactions with counterparties. The court noted that the available primary documents (contracts, TTN (consignment notes), tax invoices, bank statements) confirm the fact of business transactions. The absence of quality certificates is not a basis for recognizing transactions as unreal. The impossibility of conducting cross-checks does not in itself indicate a violation. The absence of fixed assets and labor resources at the counterparties is also not an unconditional sign of the fictitiousness of transactions, since resources can be attracted under civil law contracts or leases. It is important that the court emphasiborne on the individual responsibility of the taxpayer, i.e., TIR AUTO TRADE LLC should not be responsible for the violations of its counterparties. **:** The court also departed from previous conclusions regarding the proof of fictitious transactions based on a court verdict against the counterparty, noting that the existence of a verdict against the taxpayer’s counterparty, the mere fact of initiating criminal proceedings against the counterparty and obtaining during such proceedings testimony from a person regarding non-participation in the creation and operation of the enterprise, only tax information regarding counterparties in the supply chain, only minor errors in the execution of primary documents (separately) – are not independent and sufficient grounds for concluding that business operations are unreal.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
**Case No. 500/1736/22 dated 04/18/2025**
Good day! Of course, I have analyzed the court decision. Here is my answer:
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal by a former serviceman against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay a lump-sum monetary allowance upon dismissal, taking into account the monthly additional monetary reward.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the serviceman’s claims. The court noted that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, since in resolving the dispute they referred to the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in a case that concerned the period when Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 889 was still in effect, which provided for the payment of a monthly additional monetary reward. In this case, the plaintiff was discharged from military service after the cancellation of this resolution, and therefore, the payment of a monthly additional monetary reward was not made and could not be taken into account when calculating the lump-sum monetary allowance upon dismissal. The court also emphasized that for the recalculation of monetary allowance, it is important that the additional payments are of a permanent nature and were paid to the serviceman on the date of dismissal. Since at the time of the plaintiff’s dismissal, the monthly additional monetary reward was not paid, there were no grounds for taking it into account when calculating the lump-sum monetary allowance.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the serviceman’s claims.
**Case No. 200/6252/23 dated 04/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal to pay a judge’s assistant a monthly allowance for working in special working conditions in the territory
territories of possible hostilities.
2. The court based its decision on the existence of two resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine that regulate the issue of remuneration under martial law: Resolution No. 391, which provides for an increase in the official salary for employees of state bodies working in territories of possible hostilities, and Resolution No. 928, which provides for the payment of allowances for work with special working conditions to employees of institutions, establishments, and organizations financed from the state budget. The court noted that since the plaintiff is an employee of a state body (court) and is already receiving an increased official salary in accordance with Resolution No. 391, the additional payment of allowances for work with special working conditions based on Resolution No. 928 is not provided for. The court emphasized that these payments are homogeneous in nature, as both are aimed at improving the financial security of employees working in conditions of increased threat. In addition, the court drew attention to paragraph 5 of Resolution No. 928, which excludes employees of state bodies whose remuneration is regulated by special laws from its scope, as well as paragraph 4 of Resolution No. 391, which prohibits the establishment of other payments for work with special working conditions for employees who have already had their official salaries increased.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 340/1171/24 dated 04/18/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions and decision of the executive committee of the Znamianka City Council regarding the creation of a commission to verify the facts outlined in the article of a public association.
2. The court of cassation overturned the rulings of the appellate court, which returned the plaintiff’s first appeal and refused to open appellate proceedings on the second appeal. The court noted that the appellate court took an overly formal approach to the issue of confirming the attorney’s powers, since the indication in the warrant of “Appellate Administrative Court” is sufficient to confirm the powers. In addition, the court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not take into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the renewal of the deadline for appealing in the event of a repeated filing of the appeal, if the initial appeal was made within the deadline and the deficiencies of the appeal were promptly eliminated. Also, the court of cassation emphasized the importance of ensuring real access to justice and the inadmissibility of excessive formalism that prevents the case from being considered on its merits.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
